## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 1511 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. L O RI B RADS HAW, D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Divisi on. No . 10 CR 600-1

—Ch arl es P. K oc oras, Judge .
A RG UE D N OVE MBE R 8, 2011

— D ECI DE D F EB RU ARY 22, 2012

Befo re K ANN E , S YKES, an d H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. S YKES, C ircu it Judge. W hi l e servi ng as an o ffi ce m anage r and executi ve ass i stant f ora succes si on o f C hicag o-area em p loyers, Lori Brad sh aw em bezz led m ore t ha n $ 2 4 0 , 0 0 0 b y ma k i n gp e r s o n a lp u r c h a s e s o n c o mpany cr edi t ca rds, f al si fyi ng r ei m burse m ent c l ai m s for b u sin es s e x p en se s, an d d ep os itin g c or p or at e c h ec ks in he rpe r so na lb an ka cc o unt
. S he pl ea ded gui l tyt o o ne c ou n t of w i r e frau d , see 18 U. S
. C. § 1 34 3, r es er vingthe2 N o. 11

- 1511

r i g h tt o c h a l l e n g e a ts e n t e n c i n gthe g o v e r n me n t ’ s r e c o mm en d at ion of a tw o-le ve l in c re as e for ab u se ofa p o sitio n of tr u st, see U
. S. S. G. § 3 B 1.3 . Th e di str i ct c ourtaccepted the gov er nm en t’ s r eco m m endati on a nd appli ed § 3B1
. 3 , wh i c h r e s ul t e d in a n a dv i s o r y g ui de l i ne s r ange of27to 3 3 m on th s. The co urt i m posed a sente nce o f 27 m onths. Bradshaw app eal ed, r ei tera ting her chal l enge t o th e ab u s e - o f

- t r u s te n h a n c e me n t
. We a ffi r m.
I . B a c kg r o und B rad sh aw d efraud ed th ree C hicag o-area e m p loyers i d e n t i fi e d i n th e i n d i c t me n ta n d p l e a a g r e e me n ta s “ C o mpany A , Com pany B, and Com pany C. ” F ro m 20 04 to 200 7, s he wo r k e d a s a n e xe c ut i v e a s s i s t a nta nd o ff i ce man a g e r a t Co mpa ny A, a no np r o fi t o r g a ni z a t i on. H er du ti es i ncl ud ed supervi si ng exe cuti ve ass i sta nts, pro vi ding adm i ni str ati ve supp or t to seve ra l sta ff m em ber s, and coor dinat i ng purchase s fr om ve nd or s. Com pany A a l s o t as ke d B ra d sh aw w ith op en in g its n ew offic e in d ow nt ow n C hicag o; Brad sh aw w a s l ater given an aw ard com m ending her perf or m ance on thi s a ssi gnm ent. C om p an y A e n tr u st ed B ra d sh aw w ith a co rp or at e c re d it car d fo r busi ness expenses; not abl y, Bradsh aw was not r equi r ed to sub m i t i nv o i ce s to the c o m pany s uppo r ting he r pu rch ases. Brad sh aw used t h e corp orate cred it card to pay f orper sonali tem s s uch as cl othe s, el ec tr on ics, an d g i fts
. W he n the c o m pany b eg ani nvest i g at i ng Bradshaw ’ s t ra ns ac tio ns, she subm i tte d fa ke i nvoi ces to co n c ea l he r th eft . B ra d sh aw ch ar ge d ov er $5 6,0 00 in p er so n al e x p en se s t o h er C om p an y A co rp or at e c re d it c ar d
.N o. 11

- 1511 3 Fr om 20 07 to 2010 , Bradshaw w or ked as an e xecuti ve as sis ta n t t o a vic e-p re sid en t a t C om p an y B , a fina n c ialser vi ces com pany. Thi s co m pa n y also i ssued Bradshaw a corporate c r edi t ca r d f o rb us i ne ss pur ch as es , a nd aga i n Bradshaw used the cr edi t c ar d to buy per sonal ite m s. C om p an y B req u ire d B ra d sh aw to su b m it i nvoi ces supp or ting h erpurchase s, so to co ncealher th eft, Br ads ha w ag ain manuf ac tu r ed f ak e i nv o i ce s. S he al so subm i tte d ph ony re i m burse m en t cl ai m s forbusi ness ex p en se s u n c on n ec t e d t o th e c or p or at e c re d it c ar d . In add i ti on, Com pany B entr usted Bradshaw w ith acc ess to he rb o s s ’ s e ma i la c c o u n t ; u s i n gth i s a c c e s s , s h e fr a u dul entl y a pp ro ved hero w n i nvoi ces. B ra dshaw ’ s per sonal pu rchas es at thi s co m pany to tal ed ove r $170 , 000. CompanyB e ve ntua l l y di sc o ve r ed Br ad sh aw’ s m i sc o ndu ct, fi re d her, and re port ed the m at ter t o federa ll aw enf or cem ent. M eanw hi l e, however, Bradshaw obtained a p a r t
- t i me j o b as an e xe c ut i v e a s s i s t a nta tCo mpa nyC, a m anufa cturing co m pany. Brad sh aw co nti nued her fra ud ule nt act i vi ty at thi s co m pany by ste al i ng co rpor ate check s an d usi ng the m to deposi t m oneyi nto her perso nal bank acco unt. By the ti m e her pattern ofem bezzl em ent was uncove re d, Bradshaw had sto l en o ver $ 1 6 , 0 0 0 fr o m Co mpa nyC. B r a d s h a w wa s i n d i c t e d o n s e v e r a l fr a u d c o u n t s a nd ev en tu al l y pl ea ded gui l tyt o o ne c o unto fwi r e fr au d p urs ua nt to a p lea agreem en t. H er p resen ten ce re p ort ( “P S R” ) r ec o m m en ded thats he r ec ei ve a t wo- l ev ele nha nc ementpur su an t to U. S
. S
. G. § 3 B1. 3 f o rabus i ng4 N o. 11

- 1511

Because the PSR an d Brad shaw’s p le a agreem ent detail ed her 1 con d u ct at a ll three co m p an ies, the en ha nc em en t w ou ld ap p ly if sh e a b u se d a p o sit io n o f tru st a t a n y o n e o f th em . S ee U .S.S .G . § 1 B 1 .3(a ). p os itio n s o f tru statC om p an y A an d C om p an y B
. In 1 he rpl eaa g r ee m en t, Br ads ha w re se r ve d the r i g ht to c o nt es t th e § 3B1. 3 enha nc ement
. At s en te nc i ngs he ar gu ed t hat § 3B1. 3 a pp l i es to fi du ci ar i es, wh er eas sh e w as m er ely “a se c re ta ry w ith a fan c y t itle .” The di st r i ctc o ur t di sa g r ee d a nd a ppl i ed § 3B1
. 3. In the cour t’ s v i ew , Bradshaw’s j ob ti tl es w er e uni m port ant; th e enh an c em en t w as w arran ted becau se of the na tu re ofherr el ati onshi ps w i th su p er i or s a nd thei r l eve lo f t r u s ti n h e r . S p e c i fi c a l l y, th e c o u r tf o u n d tha t : ( 1 ) C o mpany A entrusted Bra d shaw with o pening i ts Ch i cago offic e a n d ga v e h er a c or p or at e c re d it c ar d w ith little ove rs i ght, al l owing her to perp et rate and concealher fr a ud ; a nd ( 2 ) Co mpa ny B g r a nt e d Br a ds ha w acce ss to a vi ce- presi dent’s em ai lacc ount, w h i ch enabl ed Br ads ha w to a ppr o ve he ro wn fr aud ul en t i nv o i ce s. The cour t then i m posed a sente nce o f27 m onths, the bot tom ofthe advi sory guidel i nes r ange.
I I . Discussi on The se n tencing guidel i nes c al lf ora tw o- l eve li ncre ase i n offense l eve l“[ i ] fthe defe nd ant abused a pos i ti on o f p u bl i c o r pri vate trust .
. . i n a m anner that si gni fi can tly facil itated the co m m issi on or con cealm en t of th e of-N o. 11

- 1511 5 fense.” U
. S. S. G
. § 3B 1.3. “W e review the d is t r ic t cou rt’s i nter pret atio n of§ 3B1. 3 de no vo and i ts f actualfi nd i ngs f orcl earer ro r. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Thom as , 51 0 F
. 3d 714, 72 5 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 7 )
. T h e e n h a n c e me n ta p p l i e s i fB r a d s h a w: ( 1) o c c u p i e d a p o s i t i o n o f p u b l i c o r p r i v a t e t r u s t ; a nd ( 2) abu se d the posi ti on o ftrust t o si gni fi cantl y f aci l i tat e or co n c ea l th e c om m iss ion of th e c rim e. Id. Only the fi rs t el em ent i s at is sue here. Bradshaw argues that she di d no t oc c upy posi ti ons oftrust be cause her j obs w er e no t “ chara cter i zed bypro fess i onalo r m anag er i aldi sc r et i o n ( i.e. , substa nti ald i scr eti onar y j ud gm en t t h at is ord in a r ily giv en co n sid er ab le d efe re n c e).” U
. S. S. G. § 3 B1. 3 cm t. n. 1. Bradshaw co m p ar es hers el fto “an o rdi narybankte l l ero r hotel c l er k, ” pos i ti ons that gener al l y l ack the c harac te ri sti cs o fdi scr eti onar y j ud gm en t re q u ire d fo r a p p l ica tio n of § 3 B 1.3
. See id
. I ns t e a d, sh e d escr ibes hers el fas m er el y “ an adm i ni str ati ve as sis ta n t w ith ou t s ign ifica n t a u th or ity .” W e r ecent l y c l ar i fi ed, how ever, thatthe “co m m on th re ad ” in ou r d ec isio n s u p h old in g a p p lica tio n of § 3 B 1.3 i s “ the vi cti m ’ s s peci altrust a nd r el i ance, ” no ti ng tha t “ a defe nd ant’ s a u thor i ty ove r the v i cti m ’ s v al uabl es and t he d eg r e eo f d i s c re t i o n g i v e n t o th ed e f e n d a n tb yth ev i c t i m are si m p ly in d icia of” th at tru st
. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fu ch s , 63 5 F
. 3d 92 9, 9 35 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 1) ( emphas i s adde d)
. Her e, the di st r i ctc o ur t con cl ude d tha t spe ci fi c fea tu r es o fthe relation s h ip betw een Brad sh aw and her em p loyers w arra nted the enhancem ent. S peci fi c ally, Com pany A ga ve Br adshaw the mul ti

- f ac et ed r es po ns ibi l i tyo fo pen i ng i ts Ch i cago o ffi ce a n d subsequentl y c om m ended her6 N o. 11

- 1511 perf or m ance. M or eov er, Bradsh aw was entr usted with a co rporate cr edi t ca rd f orbusi ness expenses w i th ve r y l i tt l e ov er si g ht, whi chf ac i l i ta te d he rfr au dul en t pu rchas es. Com pany B al so gave Bradshaw a cor pora te c re d it car d , as w ell as u n fet te re d ac c es s to a v ice -p re sident’s e m ail acco unt, wh i ch she used to approv e her ow n f al se i nvoi ces. Consi deri ng Bradshaw’s j ob ti tl es al one, thi s ca se w oul d fa l lo utsi de the ou te r boundari es o f§ 3 B1. 3. Butth e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s fi ndi ng s ab o utthe par t i c ul a rc ha r a c t e r i s t i c s o fh e rj o b r e s po ns ib i l i t i es su p p ort th e con clusion th at B rad sh aw ’s em p loyers “pl aced m or e than the or dinar y deg re e o f r eli ance o n [ her] i ntegr i ty and honesty
. ” Id. B ra d sh aw ’s a rg u m en t re se m b les th e o n e w e rej ec te d in Un i t e dS t a t e s v . C r uz , 317 F
. 3d 76 3 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3)
. In Cru z w e uphel d app l i cati on o f§ 3B1. 3 t o an o ffi ce m anager convi cted o fbankfra ud f orf or gi ng and cas hi ng f al se ch ec k s i n the na m e o fhe re m pl o y era nd fo rmis us i ng h e re mp l o y e r ’ s c r e d i tc a r d
. In s o h o l d i n g, w e e mphas ize d that“[ e] m plo yee s m ay hol d a posi ti on o ftrust even w he n th ey d o not occ up y up p er-l evel or even sup ervi sory pos i ti ons. ” Id. at 76 7; s e eal s o Unit e d S t at e s v. Tiojanco , 2 86 F .3d 10 19, 10 21- 22 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) ( hote l clerk occu p ied p ositi on of tru st bec au se he had prim ary re sponsibi l i ty of i ssui ng r efund s t o custo m er s with lim ite d ov er sig h t); U nited Sta tes v. Herna nd ez , 23 1 F
. 3d 10 87, 1 09 0- 91 & n. 2 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 0) ( st affa cc o unt an t o ccup ied p os itio n of tr u st b ec au se h e h ad co n sid er ab le acces s t o em plo yer ’ s t ax r etur ns and w as tr usted by su per vi so r s)
. Li k e th e empl o y ee i n Cr uz , B ra d sh aw “h eld a p ositi on of l im ited au th ority” that sh e u s e d to “earn[]N o. 11

- 1511 7 the t ru st of her supervi sor [ s]
. . . so that[ they] di d not q u e s tio n ” t h e p ro p rie ty of h er p u rc h as es . Cru z , 3 1 7F
. 3d at 767. W e r et u rn to o ur s tandard o fr evi ew , wh i ch r equi re s that w e uphol d the d i str i ct c ourt ’ s f actualfi nd i ngs u n les s t h ey are cle ar ly er ro n eo u s . B ra d sh aw ’s c as e is cl o se t o the o ut erb o unda r i es ofthe abus e- o f

- trus t en hancem ent under § 3 B1. 3. O n thi s r eco rd, i t would not have been er ro neous not to apply the ab use- of

- tr ust en ha nc ement
. I n a ca se as cl o se as th i s o ne , th es e are ma t t e r s f o r th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s j u d g me n t, wh i c h i n a ny eve nt i s no t bo und bythe advi sory s en tencing guidel i ne s. The di st r i ctc o ur t di d no t cl ea r l y er rby a ppl y i ngthe abuse- of

- tr ust e nhancem ent. The j ud gm ent i s A FFI RMED .

2- 22- 12